Private complaint procedure requires discharge under section 249, not acquittal under section 256, and permits a fresh complaint.

In a private complaint case governed by the procedure for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, absence of the complainant is dealt with under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not section 256. Section 256, which applies to summons cases and results in acquittal for non-appearance, is materially different from discharge under section 249. A discharge under section 249 does not operate as an acquittal or bar a fresh complaint under the rule against double jeopardy. The mistaken use of section 256 was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint was restored for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could invoke section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a private complaint case governed by the procedure applicable to a case instituted otherwise than on a police report; (ii) whether an order of discharge under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would bar a fresh complaint or further proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could invoke section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a private complaint case governed by the procedure applicable to a case instituted otherwise than on a police report.

Analysis: The complaint was for an offence punishable under section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the proceeding was one instituted on complaint and not a summons case of the kind contemplated by section 256. In such a case, the relevant provision is section 249, which applies before charge and permits discharge of the accused in the complainant's absence. Section 256, by contrast, operates in summons cases and authorises acquittal on non-appearance of the complainant, which is a materially different consequence.

Conclusion: Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inapplicable, and the acquittal recorded under that provision was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether an order of discharge under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would bar a fresh complaint or further proceedings.

Analysis: A discharge under section 249 is not the same as an acquittal under section 256. Section 300 does not treat a discharge as an acquittal for purposes of the bar against trial, and the statutory distinction leaves room for a fresh complaint where the earlier order is only one of discharge. The consequence of applying section 256 instead of section 249 therefore materially affected the complainant's legal position.

Conclusion: A discharge under section 249 would not bar a second complaint, and the mistaken acquittal under section 256 could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the complaint was restored, and the Magistrate was directed to issue fresh summons and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case governed by the procedure for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, absence of the complainant is to be dealt with under section 249, not section 256, and a discharge under section 249 does not attract the bar against a subsequent complaint.

---